Hi!
On 11/11/21 7:11 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 03:28:18PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>> On 11/10/21 2:33 AM, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 09, 2021 at 03:46:54PM -0600, Bill Schmidt wrote:
>>>> * config/rs6000/rs6000-builtin-new.def (CMPB): Flag as no32bit.
>>>> (BPERMD): Flag as 32bit.
> So, change this to something like "flag this as needing special handling
> on 32 bit" or something?
Sure.
>
>>>> - void __builtin_set_texasr (unsigned long long);
>>>> + void __builtin_set_texasr (unsigned long);
>>>> SET_TEXASR nothing {htm,htmspr}
>>>>
>>>> - void __builtin_set_texasru (unsigned long long);
>>>> + void __builtin_set_texasru (unsigned long);
>>>> SET_TEXASRU nothing {htm,htmspr}
>>>>
>>>> - void __builtin_set_tfhar (unsigned long long);
>>>> + void __builtin_set_tfhar (unsigned long);
>>>> SET_TFHAR nothing {htm,htmspr}
>>>>
>>>> - void __builtin_set_tfiar (unsigned long long);
>>>> + void __builtin_set_tfiar (unsigned long);
>>>> SET_TFIAR nothing {htm,htmspr}
>>> This does not seem to be what the exiting code does, either? Try with
>>> -m32 -mpowerpc64 (it extends to 64 bit there, so the builtin does not
>>> have long int as parameter, it has long long int).
>> This uses a tfiar_t, which is a typedef for uintptr_t, so long int is
>> appropriate.
>> This is necessary to make the HTM tests pass on 32-bit powerpc64.
> void f(long x) { __builtin_set_texasr(x); }
>
> built with -m32 -mpowerpc64 gives (in the expand dump):
>
> void f (long int x)
> {
> long long unsigned int _1;
>
> ;; basic block 2, loop depth 0
> ;; pred: ENTRY
> _1 = (long long unsigned int) x_2(D);
> __builtin_set_texasr (_1); [tail call]
> return;
> ;; succ: EXIT
>
> }
>
> The builtins have a "long long" argument in the existing code, in this
> configuration. And this is not the same as "long" here.
Hm, strange. I'll have to go back and revisit this. Something subtle going on.
Thanks,
Bill
>
>>>> --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/cmpb-3.c
>>>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/powerpc/cmpb-3.c
>>>> @@ -8,7 +8,7 @@ void abort ();
>>>> long long int
>>>> do_compare (long long int a, long long int b)
>>>> {
>>>> - return __builtin_cmpb (a, b); /* { dg-error "'__builtin_cmpb' is not
>>>> supported in this compiler configuration" } */
>>>> + return __builtin_cmpb (a, b); /* { dg-error "'__builtin_p6_cmpb' is
>>>> not supported in 32-bit mode" } */
>>>> }
>>> The original spelling is the correct one?
>> This is something I have on my to-do list for the future, to see whether I
>> can improve it. The overloaded function __builtin_cmpb gets translated to
>> the underlying non-overloaded builtin __builtin_p6_cmpb, and that's the only
>> name that's still around by the time we get to the error processing. I want
>> to see whether I can add some infrastructure to recover the overloaded
>> function name in such cases. Is it okay to defer this for now?
> It is fine to defer it. It is not fine to change the testcase like
> this. The user did not write __builtin_p6_cmpb (which is not even
> documented btw), so the compiler should not talk about that. It is
> fine to leave the test failing for now.
>
>
> Segher
